From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-173.mta1.migadu.com (out-173.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 088741E505 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744633187; cv=none; b=Scuywv6u3GaIiYtVQ9ILOSXiHoXKNt4CtN2tPTGhQ4CX/Lfola+PE81TyVcFdj0F1ciV0mRJHBTl6LTwGJ3cZQs6CoEP/RW3I0k+qzYjk6uuqjUWQc5OdoTq2ZeApq0sh/5hubtNAY5QiIfWazmGogt4ZJWGVq0VeGYOgorhs6U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744633187; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7sxkrPCICVlXSGO4LgZEd38nPDRQu63gI/1Olc6XOmo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K+Q6uyG14jLNxoX8r4SlAQIULaTXPeOqPysSZSQxkntLH4EIdnzFpuqJCq0VVUhzLZ9hL5sh8gmLtSV5TJVU4gXLtSGwhRIA+9ZuuyhxcgQisf36CoFp3abJQ9t8Uc4TvXy/umj2mxmqLdt3UgZ27lIkuo7r1Z5/724eYQ1wXjw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b=M3S5Iqlx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b="M3S5Iqlx" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iotcl.com; s=key1; t=1744633177; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=32CfdtFovNPwmjV03ZZVzZH7uOEklVF48Wbg//IFhiM=; b=M3S5Iqlx7yp+6Y23SzB8SO/dJiUyBqYTOkOUWl6wHpSxap9PokdvgIqwFO0WA3r1HZFF8H HOOmUrj9Z40aDdoE3EywAfWZ47uBxemoiAARxN770vi3rcDzwuSLSR8nZIfLXV9uy+fO19 Vzcwa+1RB++aqg1otKElmOzFy3ji+Tk= From: Toon Claes To: Scott Chacon via GitGitGadget Cc: Taylor Blau , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Scott Chacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] bundle-uri: add test for bundle-uri clones with tags In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87cydf541c.fsf@iotcl.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Taylor Blau writes: > I think we should be testing that all of the refs we expect to have made > it over actually did so. This diff (applied on top of your series) does > that: > > --- 8< --- > diff --git a/t/t5558-clone-bundle-uri.sh b/t/t5558-clone-bundle-uri.sh > index b1276ba295..9b211a626b 100755 > --- a/t/t5558-clone-bundle-uri.sh > +++ b/t/t5558-clone-bundle-uri.sh > @@ -128,13 +128,12 @@ test_expect_success 'create bundle with tags' ' > test_expect_success 'clone with tags bundle' ' > git clone --bundle-uri="clone-from-tags/ALL.bundle" \ > clone-from-tags clone-tags-path && > - git -C clone-tags-path for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >refs && > - grep "refs/bundles/tags/" refs >actual && > - cat >expect <<-\EOF && > - refs/bundles/tags/A > - refs/bundles/tags/B > - refs/bundles/tags/tag-A > - EOF > + > + git -C clone-from-tags for-each-ref --format="%(refname:lstrip=1)" \ > + >expect && > + git -C clone-tags-path for-each-ref --format="%(refname:lstrip=2)" \ > + refs/bundles >actual && > + > test_cmp expect actual > ' > --- >8 --- > > While writing the above, I wasn't quite sure how to follow the test > setup. It looks like it creates the following structure: > > $ git log --oneline --graph > * d9df450 (HEAD -> base, tag: B) B > * 0ddfaf1 (tag: tag-A, tag: A) A > > , which we could do with just: > > test_commit A && > test_commit B > > But even then, I don't think we really need to have more than one tag > here to exercise this functionality. So I think it would be fine to > simplify the test to just create a single tag, which a simple > "test_commit A" should do. Hi Scott, Are you planning to pick up this patch series again? I think it would be really valuable to get this merged. The patch by Taylor above might be worth integrating, other than that I think it should be good to go. Let me know if I can provide any help. -- Toon